NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND SANTIAGO N. SALVADOR, COMPLAINANTS, VS. RODOLFO G. TULIAO, SHERIFF IV OF THE RTC OF CAUAYAN, ISABELA, BRANCH 20, RESPONDENT.

National Bureau of Investigation and Salvador versus Tuliao

The Case

This is an administrative complaint filed with the Supreme Court against Rodolfo G. Tuliao, Sheriff Four of the Regional Trial Court of Cauayan, Isabela, Branch 20. The complainants are the National Bureau of Investigation and Santiago N. Salvador, the defendant in a collection suit whose passenger jeep had been attached. The charge is that the sheriff failed to take the attached vehicle into his custody and, worse, released it to the creditor despite a court order approving the defendant's counterbond and directing the release of the jeep to the defendant. The case matters because it fixes the standard of conduct for sheriffs in executing writs of attachment, and it reminds every court employee that a writ in his hands is a command to be obeyed strictly, not a discretion to be exercised.

Procedural History

The complaint was filed by Salvador before the Tuguegarao Sub-Office of the National Bureau of Investigation. Agents conducted an investigation; the respondent sheriff invoked his right to remain silent and instead submitted a Compliance and later an Answer. The investigating agents recommended the filing of an administrative case with the Office of the Court Administrator, and the Director of the National Bureau of Investigation transmitted the evaluation to the Supreme Court. The Court referred the case to the Office of the Court Administrator for evaluation, report and recommendation, and the Acting Court Administrator recommended a finding of guilt and suspension for six months without pay. The matter thus reached the Supreme Court as an original administrative complaint against a court employee.

Facts

Santiago Salvador bought a passenger jeep from Lito Ignacio, paying a down payment of 50,000 pesos and monthly installments of 7,000 pesos. He paid diligently until March 1994, when, in the seller's absence, he paid the April and May installments to the seller's brother. The brother failed to remit the money, so the seller filed a collection suit before the Regional Trial Court of Cauayan, Isabela, Branch 20. The court issued an order directing the respondent sheriff to attach the passenger jeep.

Salvador filed a motion to discharge the attachment upon filing of a counterbond. After a defective first motion, a second motion with counterbond was filed. On July 13, 1994, the trial court issued an order approving the counterbond and directing the sheriff to release the attached vehicle to the defendant. The respondent sheriff refused to comply. Instead, he released the jeep to Ignacio, the creditor, upon the latter's receipt and undertaking to produce the vehicle whenever required by the court. The sheriff justified this by saying the court had no storage building to protect the jeep from damage or loss.

Salvador filed a motion for contempt, but the case was dismissed on August 31, 1994 because jurisdiction had been transferred to the municipal trial court under the law expanding that court's jurisdiction. The jeep was later moved by Ignacio to an unknown location.

Issues

• Whether or not the respondent sheriff is administratively liable for failing to release the property under custodia legis to the complainant in accordance with the order of the regional trial court.
• Whether or not the sheriff's manner of attaching the passenger jeep, leaving it in the possession of the creditor, complied with the Rules of Court.

Applicable Provisions

Section 5 of Rule 57 of the Rules of Court provides:

Section 5. Manner of attaching property. The officer executing the order shall without delay attach, to await judgment and execution in the action, all the properties of the party against whom the order is issued in the province.

This provision required the sheriff to attach the jeep without delay, and his failure to take it into custody violated it.

Section 7 of Rule 57 of the Rules of Court provides:

Section 7. Attachment of real and personal property; recording thereof. Properties shall be attached by the officer executing the order in the following manner: Personal property capable of manual delivery, by taking and safely keeping it in his capacity, after issuing the corresponding receipt therefor.

This is the core provision: the sheriff must take and safely keep personal property capable of manual delivery, and leaving it with the creditor did not satisfy this requirement.

Section 4(c) of Republic Act No. 6713 provides:

Section 4. Norms of Conduct of Public Officials and Employees. (c) Justness and sincerity. Public officials and employees shall remain true to the people at all times. They must act with justness and sincerity and shall not discriminate against anyone, especially the poor and the underprivileged. They shall at all times respect the rights of others, and shall refrain from doing acts contrary to law, good morals, good customs, public policy, public order, public safety and public interest.

This provision supplied the ethical standard breached by the sheriff when he extended an undue favor to the creditor.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held the sheriff administratively liable. His manner of attachment was irregular and his reason unacceptable. Under Section 7 of Rule 57, personal property capable of manual delivery must be taken and safely kept in the officer's capacity. The sheriff left the jeep in the possession and control of the creditor, which did not satisfy the Rules and did not conform to the plainly worded order of the trial court. The receipt imposing on Ignacio the obligation to produce the jeep did not comply either, because it did not establish that the property was in the sheriff's substantial presence and possession. The Court quoted its earlier ruling that a verbal declaration of seizure is not sufficient, and that there must be an actual taking of possession and placing of the attached property under the control of the officer or someone representing him. The sheriff could not feign ignorance, and his claim that the court had no storage facility was no justification, since he could have deposited the jeep in a bonded warehouse. Compelling the creditor to release the property was not in order; the proper remedy was for the party whose property was attached to apply for discharge of the attachment by filing a counterbond, which delivers possession to the party giving the counterbond.

On the second issue, the Court held that a court employee is an integral part of the administration of justice and must act with propriety and decorum. Section 4(c) of Republic Act No. 6713 requires justness and sincerity in the discharge of official duties. The Court reiterated that every officer or employee in the judiciary is duty bound to obey the orders and processes of the court without the least delay. Leaving the attached property with the creditor made a farce of the attachment. When a writ is placed in the hands of a sheriff, it is his duty to proceed with reasonable celerity and promptness to execute it according to its mandate, and to execute the order strictly to the letter. By acceding to the creditor's request, the sheriff extended an undue favor that prejudiced the complainant and the orderly administration of justice. His prerogatives gave him no discretion to determine who among the parties was entitled to possession. His belated effort to obtain the jeep did not mitigate or exculpate him.

Doctrine

A sheriff executing a writ of attachment over personal property capable of manual delivery must take actual possession of the property and safely keep it in his capacity, issuing the corresponding receipt. A verbal declaration of seizure, or leaving the property in the possession of the attaching creditor under a mere undertaking to produce it, is not a valid levy. The sheriff has no discretion to decide who among the parties is entitled to possession; his duty is to execute the court's order strictly to the letter and with reasonable celerity. A court employee who extends an undue favor to a party violates the norm of justness and sincerity under Section 4(c) of Republic Act No. 6713 and is administratively liable.

Disposition

The Court found the respondent sheriff administratively liable as charged and suspended him for six months without pay, with a warning that the commission of the same or similar acts in the future shall be dealt with more severely.

Remember This

Memorize the line that leaving attached personal property in the possession of the attaching creditor makes a farce of the attachment, because the sheriff must take and safely keep it in his capacity. Examiners use this case to test the manner of attachment under Rule 57 and the administrative liability of sheriffs who disobey court orders.